W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Media types

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:19:58 +0100 (CET)
To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201151016420.9419-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Paul,
 I disagree, the document is in my opinion logically XHTML while 
it uses XSLT, which is perfectly legal due to open content model 
of XHTML. The handling is mainly HTML, and the HTML processor may 
use XSLT to have the complete picture, but according to HTML spec 
(IIRC) it is free to ignore anything unknown to it, like the
xsl:value-of element.
 Anyway, this disagreement shows that this debate on media types 
etc. has its obscure points. 8-)
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Paul Prescod wrote:

 > Mark Nottingham wrote:
 > > 
 > >...
 > > 
 > > Using the top-level namespace to identify a document's application is
 > > tempting, but doesn't always prove useful. 
 > 
 > Consider this example from the XSLT specification:
 > 
 > <html xsl:version="1.0"
 >       xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
 >       xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/strict">
 >   <head>
 >     <title>Expense Report Summary</title>
 >   </head>
 >   <body>
 >     <p>Total Amount: <xsl:value-of select="expense-report/total"/></p>
 >   </body>
 > </html>
 > 
 > It's a perfect example. This document is logically XSLT, not HTML. 
 > 
 >  Paul Prescod
 > 
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 04:20:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:05 GMT